Leaked tech news - Just how leaked is it?

[AGTDenton]

Reading the following article, Slides touting GDDR5X memory advantages leak online, I got distracted by the word 'leak'. The word for me has just become synonymous with an overall marketing ploy.

Nearly every week I see at least one Tech article that claims the information contained is leaked. But as I'm reading through it I have my suspicions as to whether any of it was truly leaked or whether someone high up in the company hands a piece of paper or usb stick to an employee and says "pop this on the web using an anonymous username, from some weird country so that we can show off our up and coming products".

Traditionally leaking information would have ramifications but it seems now to be used as a tactic to drive early interest. I cant recall seeing a follow up article in the vein of "Employee fired" or "made to wear a silly hat for a month" over releasing information they shouldn't.

Is leaking just acceptable now, or is it just part of a marketing plan as I suspect it to be?

[scaryjim]

Depends on what you class as leaking. Any information released outside of an official announcement by the company concerned is technically "leaked", but most "leaks" don't actually cause any damage to the reputation or business of a company, as most information a company holds isn't actually that commercially sensitive. Unless a leak causes substantive damage to a company I suspect the legal costs of "dealing" with it would be too high to justify.

And don't forget that a lot of leaks will benefit the company in the short term: we often see share prices jump on "leaked" information. I don't think it's anything as sinister as senior people surreptitiously organising for information to make its way into the public domain, but I suspect there's is a recognition that you can't plug all the leaks and a lot of careless talk will have a blind eye turned to it....

[kalniel]

It can be part of a marketing plan, but I appreciate Hexus' use of the word to reflect it's not an official communication at the moment in time - far better than presenting rumours as news!

[Ttaskmaster]

And don't forget that a lot of leaks will benefit the company in the short term

Working for a water utilities company, all this talk of leaks and leakage triggers so many odd responses in my thought process!!

We actually have 'Meta-leakage', which is where information about leaking pipes is itself leaked to outside sources and from other companies to ours... usually through loose-lipped employees nattering on forums!

But yeah, I think some do purposely leak things for marketing purposes and/or just accept that it does happen. More the larger companies where, incidentally, it's probably harder to keep the leaks from happening. Conversely, smaller companies have fewer people, so it's often much easier to figure out and track down whoever violated their NDA or whatever.

For example, I could (hypothetically) tell you about what one particular game programmer at a well-known dev has told me they're working on right now... but since that person is the *only* programmer in the company, it'll be pretty obvious to their employer and my friend would likely lose their job within the hour!!

[Saracen]

Depends whether it's an officially sanctioned 'leak' or not. If it is, it's marketing. If it isn't, it's a leak, regardless of any actual or perceived benefit to the company.

Personally, I've had company officials, up to and including CEO's, provide information on several different sets of rules. Often, it's under NDA. I never break those, because as a freelancer, the downside of getting caught is getting frozen out in future. I've had NDA's where the company has emphasised the confidentiality of an NDA, almost as if saying "we really mean it this time", implying perhaps that they don't mean it normally.

Sometimes, they just say prior to a briefing "it's embargoed until midnight on x date". Sometimes, they distributed somewhat intimidating 'legally binding" confidentiality agreements with warnings of liability for commercial loss, lawyers costs incurred, etc, and all press participants can sign, or depart.

And sometimes, usually in a one-on-one (or at most, two or three to one) it's more of an honour, give-your-word thing, but that's always with people I've known and worked with for years.

Then, I've had briefings where the remit has been "it's not official yet but ..." or "don't quote me on it, but ..." (often with the emphasis as "don't quote ME on it", which I take as a hint that :-

- it's true,
- it's not officially announced yet, and
- it's a hint they want it leaked.

Sometimes, that sort of "leak" has been done, I believe 'officially' as a direct favour, and I've even been told, overtly, it'll be official in, say, 24 or 48 hours. So, it's a "scoop".

Then, there's been occasions when something has been let slip distinctly unofficially. For instance, at a board level briefing in a large Japanese company, having been asked a question about major customers for OEM products at component level, the various directors broke into a rapid exchange of Japanese apparently ignoring the possibility that I and several other press attendees might have at least a rudimentary grasp of the language (and I sure hadn't told them) but more seriously, ignoring that "Sony" (and others) are the same in English.

I didn't use that particular snippet, but others did. That one either was a genuine leak, or a very subtle piece of official planting indeed.

In short, there's no way to know. I've seen all sorts, including genuinely NDA'd info get out, and the problem is, unless the company can ascertain exactly who broke it, they can't really blacklist the entire UK, European or even worldwide press. That company needs the press as a whole more than individuals, or even publishers, need one company.

For me, as a freelance, it's not a risk worth taking but whether staff journalists, especially senior ones, see it like that I don't know.

Oh, and again based on personal experience, while companies leak intentionally some of the time, governments, and government ministers, do it actively, intentionally and very intensively. I'm nowhere near the inner core, and I'm certainly not 'lobby' accredited, and even I've had snippets dropped, right up to Chancellor of the Exchequer level (and no, not the current one).

But when it turns out half a dozen different journalists had the same "leak", inside an hour or two, you KNOW some politician, or SPAD, has had a busy morning leaking. And when press are reporting the exact contents of a speech before it happens, it's VERY unlikely not to have been deliberately briefed out.

We can all infer the odds of it being "marketing", but in reality you can never be sure and even when it's been me it's "leaked" to, I can never be entirely sure if it's a genuine leak, or a subtle 'official' one.

One thing. My belief, and I put it no stronger than that, is that the more senior the source, the more likely it's marketing than leak. If a junior source leaks, and senior ones "neither confirm nor deny", then it's either a genuine leak, or very subtle marketing. And sometimes, the very reaction from the senior people to being asked to confirm or deny very firmly suggests it's not official. Or that that senior person missed a glittering career on stage and screen.

Bear in mind, there's a variety of bases for 'leaks', including 'background only', 'off the record' and 'non-attributable'. What someone wants as the basis hints at the official status of a 'leak', as often does the subject matter, and the extent to which it benefits the leaker's organisation. Or otherwise.

[AGTDenton]

Thank you Saracen, that's an interesting and informed insight.

I agree with everyone's comments, ultimately we will never know but have reasonable suspicions.